Essendon's immediate football fate will be shaped over three consecutive Saturday afternoons. The club has to win at least two of three games in Melbourne against West Coast, the Gold Coast and Carlton in order to play finals.

But the next three days, starting from Monday, could be far more consequential for the club, when it will stand before the Federal Court and seek to strike down ASADA's case against 34 current or former players for possible doping violations.

Which set of three days matter more to the Essendon players and supporters? Which team has the harder ask: the legal one in suits, or the 22 suited up in red and black jumpers? It is fair to say that the barracking will be fiercer around the court event, even if it is less comprehensible to the viewers than whether Joe Daniher should be picked, and much less entertaining than a Mark Thompson press conference.

Illustration: Mick Connolly

The players can only focus on the outcome they can influence, which are those two afternoons at Etihad Stadium, and one at the MCG against the Blues, which could – that indefinite word again – be Thompson's last game as senior coach, depending on their own and other results. The Bombers had seemed assured of finals a fortnight ago; now, they are shaky.

Advertisement

Essendon's court contest is about preventing ASADA from converting show-cause notices into infractions, and, in turn, forcing suspensions. I only say that the court outcome ''could'' be more important than the football results, because we cannot say, with much confidence, what will happen, or where the legal stoush will progress. It could be merely stage one of a televised legal marathon. Or – harder to believe – it might be done on Wednesday.

This column has consulted with various lawyers, without gaining any expert consensus. It is like an Essendon-Richmond game: we're only guessing.

Essendon can ''win'' in court by knocking ASADA case out, by persuading – assuming he hasn't already decided – Justice John Middleton that the ASADA ''joint investigation'' with the AFL was unlawful. James Hird is running the same case, in a joint submission.

But if ASADA wins – by persuading Middleton that it can proceed with its process – this will merely be another step in that statutory authority's progression to the issuing of infraction notices against current and ex-players. Essendon might appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court, or it can choose to fight directly against infractions, by ''showing cause'' against the notices (to a doping panel).

Ultimately, should ASADA be allowed to grind on, the end point would be the players defending themselves in an AFL-appointed tribunal, filled with doping/legal experts. This is an interesting, little known quirk of the doping rules – that the AFL actually issues the infractions, not ASADA, and that the players are finally judged by their sporting body, not ASADA.

So Essendon can have a quick kill. ASADA can't. Legal observers with a working knowledge of the judge reckon Middleton is a man who doesn't muddle, or muck around, and that he will reach a clean decision by the close of Wednesday. If it goes in favour of Essendon, there's a chance the saga will cease, though ASADA has threatened to press the re-set button and give the players a Groundhog Day (or the Edge of Tomorrow) by starting a new investigation. Like the Bill Murray and Tom Cruise characters, the players presumably would do it differently a second time, offering less co-operation.

ASADA is viewed more like aliens, or the robots in the Terminator series. Unlike Essendon and the AFL – both human organisms, with particular needs and foibles – ASADA doesn't seem to have an emotional core. It just proceeds, according to its robotic rules. In that sense, it is more trustworthy, but also less forgiving. ''An athlete takes responsibility for what he puts in his body'' is the rule that is driving it forward.

That uniform rule is harsh, if you believe – as many do – that the Essendon players were duped, despite attempting some measures to protect themselves (including a consent form that, ironically, became part of the case against them).

This column believes that it would be fairer if ASADA had a first option of charging Essendon with a team doping violation, rather than putting 34 players in the dock, as if each one was a shotputter or weightlifter. If the players took thymosin beta-4, then it was administered by Stephen Dank as a part of a rogue program that the players didn't initiate and was inherently coercive. Morally, the organisation ought to be more accountable than the players. Essendon would say that it has already paid a fair price, in the form of the AFL sanctions last August.

That's certainly debatable, though irrelevant at this moment. As it stands, ASADA is going after the players, quite a number of whom are no longer with the club. Despite the release of embarrassing, but unsurprising documents on Friday, the AFL is simply an interested spectator. My impression is that it wouldn't be upset if the court found for Essendon – assuming that ended it.

The 20-plus players who remain on the senior list have done wonderfully well to keep their eyes on the ball, to train and play and win their share of games, during a 19-month saga that has no precedent, not simply in the AFL, but in international sport. They followed stupid orders. They've stuck it out with the club, and each other, when they could have walked – the AFL Players Association even had a rule changed this year that would almost certainly make many of them free agents.

The Essendon players have to win two games, maybe three. Otherwise, they will miss finals for the second time, 12 months after they qualified but were removed from September action.

To miss finals again would be a gigantic letdown after all they've endured. Whatever happens in court, those three Saturday afternoons still hold great meaning.